UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Resume]

Garrison is talking about your redefinition fallacies, your falsely attributing superhuman memory abilities to yourself and your likely fabrication of evidence.

That you can't remember these items even when you could easily review this thread for a memory refresher puts your "superhuman" memory abilities in context.

And let's not forget this/these sighting/s last mere seconds.

 

[ehcks]

If you want to claim UFO means "alien spacecraft" you must either show alien spacecraft exist or admit you're redefining UFO to refer to an imaginary thing. UFO would be like unicorn. A real word defining an unreal object.

So the redefinition doesn't even matter. You still need evidence of aliens and their crafts.

 

[ufology]

Garrison is talking about your redefinition fallacies, your falsely attributing superhuman memory abilities to yourself and your likely fabrication of evidence.

That you can't remember these items even when you could easily review this thread for a memory refresher puts your "superhuman" memory abilities in context.

And let's not forget this/these sighting/s last mere seconds.

Resume:

You're making more unfounded proclaimations. I've made no "redefinition fallacy". Neither have I claimed "superhuman memory". I have however asked for a definition from the skeptics of the word "evidence" along with references, and thus far have received none.

 

[carlitos]

Resume:

You're making more unfounded proclaimations. I've made no "redefinition fallacy". Neither have I claimed "superhuman memory". I have however asked for a definition from the skeptics of the word "evidence" along with references, and thus far have received none.

You did both in the same post, liar.

Since you are the only one posting here, all we have is your word that those two other people remember the event the same way you do.

You've been told multiple times that human memory is notoriously fallible. Every time you've remembered this memory or told someone about it it got molded again in your brain. There is no way to say what actually happened, even for someone who was there and witnessed whatever it was. Human memory is not self-correcting, as you've erroneously claimed.

It is very revealing that you cannot accept those facts.

AdMan:

It all depends on how you define "self-correcting". If you seem to have forgotten something, say a person's name, then you have a memory "error". However you can set you mind to rebuilding that memory, and sometime later, suddenly the memory is reformed ( the "error" is "corrected" ). This has probably happened to everyone here and everyone watching.

Additionally, you could consider the "moulding it into your brain" ( as you say ) on subsequent reacollections, as a form of error prevention. Plus we have the added benefit of intelligence. Using our powers of reason, we can also correct memory "errors" through investigation and research.

Machines don't even come close to the level of humans on the intelligence scale ( yet anyway ). So presuming everyone is so feeble minded that they can't tell the difference between something extraordinary and something mundane, or remember it well enough to describe it with reasonable accuracy, is not a reasonable position.

The human brain is absolutely amazing, and so long as we are healthy, it is accurate enough to allow us to do and recall many things consistently our whole life. It is neither as weak or fallible as you constantly claim it to be in such general terms.

 

[RoboTimbo]

My position is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606288&postcount=13051

His misrepresentations of my position are here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606319&postcount=13054

He starts by indirectly stating that I fabricate evidence and quoting my position out of context as if it in some way supports it.

The evidence indicates that you fabricate evidence. Your dishonesty has been put on display quite a few times.

His next comment ignores that the context is " If you accept the story for the sake of inquiry and discussion ...", and he responds as if I had made the assertion that you should simply accept a story at face value, which was not my position at all.

You ignored the context of my answer and that was in context of your question "If you accept...". You took my in context response out of context when it was in direct response in context to your position.

His next comment misrepresents my position by implying that my story has "evolved" or changed substantially. This is not true. I wasn't asked to lay out my whole story all at once. I was asked individual questions about it as the thread progressed, and I answered them all as we went along. In this sense it was unveiled ... but it didn't evolve. I only made a couple of minor mistakes in recall and precision, but they aren't relevant to the essential events anyway.

You misrepresent your own position by implying that your "story" has not evolved when the evidence of your own posts is right here for everyone to read. Your 200 feet, evolving to 300 yards, evolving to 4608 feet, your detail to add verisimilitude to your story about the song playing. Your story has evolved and you misrepresent the context of that in the context of your story evolving.

Then he goes on to reiterate the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra, which is nothing but biased rhetoric, and doesn't even apply to the context, that again being the point that if you are going to accept a story for the sake of discussion and inquiry, then you can't go changing it by fabricating your own evidence and inserting it into the story to suit your own agenda.

No, "ECREE" is well established to weed out the woo. Too many credulous believers who hang their hat on claims being evidence for themselves have made it mandatory. Why would it not apply in this context? But I agree with you, you should stop fabricating your own evidence and inserting it into the story to suit your own agenda.

The skeptics here constantly engage in this type of misrepresentation of their opponent combined with self serving false logic.

Now if you want to be honest, go back to my sighting account and point out how the reasoning that I used to calculate the distances doesn't make sense. Then you'll have something meaningful to say. Simply saying it isn't possible doesn't count. Changing the story to suit your own purposes doesn't count either because that is fabricating evidence to suit your analysis.

Your dishonesty has been pointed out with verified examples from your own posts. Changing the story to suit your own purposes doesn't count because you are fabricating the evidence to match your unfalsifiable anecdote as you go.

 

[Resume]

Resume:

You're making more unfounded proclaimations. I've made no "redefinition fallacy". Neither have I claimed "superhuman memory". I have however asked for a definition from the skeptics of the word "evidence" along with references, and thus far have received none.

It seems you have forgotten how the quote function works.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resume:

You're making more unfounded proclaimations. I've made no "redefinition fallacy". Neither have I claimed "superhuman memory". I have however asked for a definition from the skeptics of the word "evidence" along with references, and thus far have received none.

You've quoted me but attributed it to Resume.

 

[23_Tauri]

...snip blah blah blah ...snip

because I can't be bothered right now ETA: And RoboTimbo answered quite ably. I have nothing to add to his reply.

Now if you want to be honest, go back to my sighting account and point out how the reasoning that I used to calculate the distances doesn't make sense.

You can reason all you like, the fact is that human error in judging distances in the kind of conditions you found yourself in that night are well documented. No talk of "I knew how far away the mountains were because I checked on a map" and such like can't take away from the fact that you could have quite easily been watching:
1. Fireflies close up
2. Car headlights further away
3. A procession of kittens coming down the mountain carrying torches.

Your memory of that night is sketchy, just as anyone's would be. You think it's (check out the apostrophe, folks ) not because that's human too; people think they remember what occured in front of them but on testing it transpires that they don't.

But you won't accept any of this because your mind is made up.

Then you'll have something meaningful to say. Simply saying it isn't possible doesn't count. Changing the story to suit your own purposes doesn't count either because that is fabricating evidence to suit your analysis.

Again, none of us have changed your story. We've offered suggestions as to what it was you saw. No one is saying alien spaceship is impossible. Nothing is impossible and skeptics tend not to say definitive things, because people who say definitive things tend to open themselves up to ridicule, for obvious reasons.

However, alien spaceship is highly improbable, because no-one on planet Earth has ever seen one (except Edge ). No impossible, but very very very very very very very unlikely.

 

[RoboTimbo]

However, alien spaceship is highly improbable, because no-one on planet Earth has ever seen one (except Edge ). No impossible, but very very very very very very very unlikely.

We know kittens and flashlights exist on this planet. I've seen evidence in this thread. Flashlight bearing kittens are infinitely more likely than alien spaceships which have never been shown to be here.

 

[ufology]

If you want to claim UFO means "alien spacecraft" you must either show alien spacecraft exist or admit you're redefining UFO to refer to an imaginary thing. UFO would be like unicorn. A real word defining an unreal object.

So the redefinition doesn't even matter. You still need evidence of aliens and their crafts.

ehcks:

Things don't have to be proven to define their intended meaning. For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist, yet we use it without reservation because we assume it will happen. We don't define it as, "The day we believe will happen after today but hasn't been proven will happen".

Grant it, it doesn't hurt to add some context when needed, but such context can always be added at the time the word is used. Also note that the word "alien" does not necessitate an extraterrestrial craft, just one that is alien to human civilization.

 

[carlitos]

For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist,

Baloney.

 

[Marduk]

. For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist.

it must do, you just used it in a sentence

 

[Tomtomkent]

Any emperical evidence will do by the way:
Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences[citation needed]. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Note the bit about being properly documented. As your "self correcting" memory is anything but, it is invalid.

 

[ehcks]

ehcks:

Things don't have to be proven to define their intended meaning. For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist, yet we use it without reservation because we assume it will happen. We don't define it as, "The day we believe will happen after today but hasn't been proven will happen".

Grant it, it doesn't hurt to add some context when needed, but such context can always be added at the time the word is used. Also note that the word "alien" does not necessitate an extraterrestrial craft, just one that is alien to human civilization.

That's what I said. Unicorns don't have to exist for the word unicorn to mean a horse-like animal with a horn out of it's head.

Alien spacecraft don't have to exist for the words to exist.

But alien spacecraft DO have to exist if you're claiming you saw them. You're claiming you saw alien spacecraft, so you must have evidence that they exist. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

I'm disregarding your effort to define them into existence by saying our repeated usage of "UFO" must mean alien spacecraft exist. When you define UFO to mean alien spacecraft, you are either claiming that aliens exist, and have spacecraft, and have been seen by humans; or you are claiming UFOs are imaginary objects like unicorns.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ehcks:

Things don't have to be proven to define their intended meaning. For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist, yet we use it without reservation because we assume it will happen. We don't define it as, "The day we believe will happen after today but hasn't been proven will happen".

Grant it, it doesn't hurt to add some context when needed, but such context can always be added at the time the word is used. Also note that the word "alien" does not necessitate an extraterrestrial craft, just one that is alien to human civilization.

Then why don't you say Alien Space Ship when you mean Alien Space Ship? Does it sound silly even to you?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Things don't have to be proven to define their intended meaning. For example the word "tomorrow" can never be proven to exist, yet we use it without reservation because we assume it will happen. We don't define it as, "The day we believe will happen after today but hasn't been proven will happen".

If the actuality of tomorrow exists or not, the word exists regardless. You do understand the difference between a word existing and its subject existing? Because the gem above suggests you don't.

 

[Agatha]

The word "tomorrow" exists, and we have plenty of evidence that every day so far has been succeeded by another day (switch to Julian calendar notwithstanding).

We use the evidence we have gained from previous days to provisionally assume that there will be a tomorrow every day, and once the clock ticks past midnight we can confirm the existence of the tomorrow we discussed the day before.

Evidence for alien craft.... not so much. Not even in this thread, despite over 13,000 posts.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Could we could just skip the pseudo philosophy and semantics part and get to the evidence for alien space craft?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Could we could just skip the pseudo philosophy and semantics part and get to the evidence for alien space craft?

I'm just killing time until the next dodge.

 

[Garrison]

Could we could just skip the pseudo philosophy and semantics part and get to the evidence for alien space craft?

I'm afraid we've had that; it consists of Ufology's 40 year old recollection that he has 'refined' and which cannot, according to his unimpeachable memory, have been anything so mundane as a firefly.